Allis Chalmers
Showing posts with label Joint Review Panel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joint Review Panel. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Joint Review Panel Report on Northern Gateway Pipeline to be released on December 19
The Joint Review Panel (NEB) will release its report on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline on December 19, 2013 at 2:30 Calgary time.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
NEB asked to fast track Northern Gateway decision
Read the NEB letter at: August 7, 2012.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Minister Oliver puts Joint Review Panel members in awkward position
Read the article by Professor Nigel Bankes that discusses the January 9, 2012 "open letter" from the Hon. Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources (click here). This is the letter in which Mr. Oliver referred to "radicals" who will "hijack our regulatory system". Professor Bankes wonders about the effect of the letter on the ongoing regulatory process:
For example, put yourself in the position of a JRP panel member. What would you think if the Minister responsible for the Board announced that: (1) the current system is broken, and (2) the NGP is clearly and obviously in the national interest (aka public convenience and necessity) the day before you had to open the hearings in one of the most affected communities? And more importantly, imagine the challenge facing that panel in convincing the community that the fix was not already in and that the job of the panel was to conduct a careful, independent and impartial review of the project.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Joint Review Panel has asked Enbridge to provide preliminary abandonment plan for Northern Gateway project
The Joint Review Panel (NEB and CEAA) considering the application by Enbridge for the Northern Gateway pipeline project has requested the following information from the proponent on the issue of pipeline abandonment:
Request: a) Please provide a preliminary abandonment plan for the NorthernMore information on the Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel is available at: Review Panel.
Gateway Project, including:
a.1) a description of what pipeline components would be removed,
reused or left in place and provide the rationale for doing so. Where site specific situations require special methodology, then details should be provided;
a.2) the reclamation objectives or principles to be applied to abandonment; and
a.3) sufficient information to demonstrate that abandonment of the project will return the right of way to a state comparable with the surrounding environment.
b) Regarding consultation on eventual abandonment with stakeholders including potentially affected landowners and aboriginal groups, and other authorities and agencies, provide:
b.1) a summary of the consultation that has occurred, and
b.2) the strategy and processes for future consultation as the abandonment plan is refined.
c) Provide an estimate in 2010 dollars of the total cost to abandon the system, using Base Case components (as described in reference iv), or other better information available to Northern Gateway. If information other than Base Case components is relied on, provide an explanation as to why that information was used.
d) Explain the source of revenue that Northern Gateway will use to fund this liability. If the source is shipper tolls, provide an estimate of the impact on revenue requirement.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Kinder Morgan Canada continues to oppose Enbridge Northern Gateway application as deficient
Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC) has written to the Joint Review Panel (NEB) hearing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline application to propose that a preliminary issue be decided before the review process continues. The preliminary issue is as follows:
Can the Panel consider the Application and carry out its mandate and responsibilities for conducting the environmental assessment of the Project under the Panel Agreement if there is no demonstration of market support for the Project and it does not comply with the National Energy Board's filing requirement of demonstrating economic feasibility and need?KMC suggests that there are at least three grounds for deferring consideration of the application:
- Failure to comply with the NEB Filing Manual Requirements for Section 52 Applications;
- Adverse impacts on pipeline competition;
- Inability of the Panel to discharge its obligations under the Panel Agreement
The joint review panel process is the most intensive type of environmental assessment in Canada. For the Panel to be afforded the best evidentiary record, all parties must be provided with sufficient information to test whether the proposed facilities are needed and necessary and in the public interest. The absence of this contractual information means there is a real and unnecessary risk that the joint review process would become inefficient and wasting the significant resources of not only the Panel, but also of all of the participants in this proceeding.Read the KMC letter at: KMC letter dated September 8, 2010.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Joint Review Panel asking for comments on Enbridge Northern Gateway Application
The Joint Review Panel created to hear Enbridge's application for the Northern Gateway Pipeline has released a procedural order requesting comments from interested parties:
The entire procedural direction can be viewed at: Joint Panel Procedural Direction.
While the order requires that Enbridge serve a number of parties with a copy of the order, there still seems to be no requirement that Enbridge notify affected non-Aboriginal landowners directly regarding the Joint Review Panel process or this comment submission process.
Written comments must be received by the Panel no later than September 8, 2010. There will also be three panel sessions held to hear oral comments. The dates for the sessions and deadlines for registration are set out in the order.
If you're a landowner along the proposed route, or know someone who is, you can find out more about how landowners may be affected by the pipeline and what they can do to respond by contacting the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA). Visit CAEPLA's website at: http://www.landownerassociation.ca/.
The entire procedural direction can be viewed at: Joint Panel Procedural Direction.
While the order requires that Enbridge serve a number of parties with a copy of the order, there still seems to be no requirement that Enbridge notify affected non-Aboriginal landowners directly regarding the Joint Review Panel process or this comment submission process.
Written comments must be received by the Panel no later than September 8, 2010. There will also be three panel sessions held to hear oral comments. The dates for the sessions and deadlines for registration are set out in the order.
If you're a landowner along the proposed route, or know someone who is, you can find out more about how landowners may be affected by the pipeline and what they can do to respond by contacting the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA). Visit CAEPLA's website at: http://www.landownerassociation.ca/.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
CBC News - Money - Environmental panel's demands could kill Mackenzie project: Imperial
CBC News - Money - Environmental panel's demands could kill Mackenzie project: Imperial
Imperial Oil and other backers of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline are asking the National Energy Board to reject several recommendations made by the Joint Review Panel set up to assess the project. For one thing, the project proponents claim that a restriction on noise from facilities installed within a 623 square kilometre bird sanctuary may prevent development of about two-thirds of the gas intended for the pipeline. The proponents also reject the suggestion that assessments be filed about the effects of construction on permafrost before trenching is begun.
The proponents comments on Joint Review Panel recommendations within the NEB's mandate are available at:
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=593186&objAction=browse
The proponents comments on Joint Review Panel recommendations outside the NEB's mandate are available at:
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=593190&objAction=browse
The report submitted by the Joint Review Panel is available at:
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=588326&objAction=browse
Imperial Oil and other backers of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline are asking the National Energy Board to reject several recommendations made by the Joint Review Panel set up to assess the project. For one thing, the project proponents claim that a restriction on noise from facilities installed within a 623 square kilometre bird sanctuary may prevent development of about two-thirds of the gas intended for the pipeline. The proponents also reject the suggestion that assessments be filed about the effects of construction on permafrost before trenching is begun.
The proponents comments on Joint Review Panel recommendations within the NEB's mandate are available at:
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=593186&objAction=browse
The proponents comments on Joint Review Panel recommendations outside the NEB's mandate are available at:
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=593190&objAction=browse
The report submitted by the Joint Review Panel is available at:
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=588326&objAction=browse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)